March 15, 2010

Here's the article. Quite apart from the childishness of evoking the term "teabagger" and creating a image to convey the term (to those in the know), it's quite an offense to Mark Skoda, whose name appears next to the image. Since there is no caption, it creates the impression that that is a picture of Mark Skoda! I'm surprised TNR isn't more careful about provoking lawsuits. Basically, TNR is flaunting its stupidity here.

Maybe they don't want us to take the serious article seriously.

Ironically, that's a reason to read it.

... I couldn’t help but watch Skoda as he sat in a huge ballroom on the convention’s second night, listening to Joseph Farah, the mustachioed editor of the far-right-wing website WorldNetDaily, work the crowd of 600 into a frenzy. “If Barack Obama even seeks reelection as president in 2012, he won’t be able to go to any city, any hamlet in America without seeing signs that ask, ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’” Farah crowed from the podium.

Mustachioed? Now, we're left wondering if that's Farah in the photograph.

[Skoda] couldn’t have been pleased. Skoda and convention mastermind Judson Phillips have ambitious goals for the Tea Party movement. They aim to build their respective groups (Skoda is founding a Tea Party PAC; Phillips heads an organization called Tea Party Nation) into political players that can influence votes and tug candidates in their direction. But their quandary is as plain as the expression on Skoda’s face during Farah’s paranoid Friday night monologue: How can a movement whose base detests mainstream politics--not to mention, has a few screws loose--possibly build political clout?...

Skoda rationalizes some of the Tea Party’s rough edges as a necessity of movement-building. “I think it’s always useful to get people excited,” he says. “Part of this movement is visceral. It’s perfectly okay.” But he is much more interested in practical politics than in bombast....

Political realism, however, isn’t what the Tea Party base wants to hear....

To the sidelined activists, Skoda’s approach and the Nashville convention are the antithesis of what the movement should be about....

Whether the tea partiers will prove too busy fighting among themselves to fight the Republicans, the Democrats, and the system writ large is anyone’s guess. But Skoda is pragmatic enough to know that he can’t cut the non-pragmatists out of the coalition altogether.

Ironically, the author of this article — Lydia DePillis — is a Mark Skoda type, sensible, moderate, and analytical. And whoever put that photograph on the article is a Joseph Farah, stirring up the readers, getting people excited and visceral.

UPDATE: TNR has swapped in a different photograph, so it's good that I got the screen capture. The "teabagger" picture also went out in TNR's email alert titled "The New Republic Politics Weekly Newsletter: The Tea Party's frustrated moderates."

ADDED: Ace links here and says: "They only do that one story, eh? The 'moderates' are always so close to ditching the party over the wignuts; we're almost in a state of civil war. It's always that way in the GOP. Now it's that way in the Tea Party, too. Meanwhile, no wingnuttery or frustrated moderates in the Democratic Party, eh?"

You're right, the picture is definitely meant to confuse the reader into thinking it's a photograph of Skoda. But I don't think it's stupidity. This is quite intentional. They don't care about provoking lawsuits. This is psy-ops.

I didn't actually think it was anyone associated with the "Tea Parties". Based on the age of the person in the picture, the nasty, patchy facial hair, the black-framed rectangular-format glasses and the evidently gleeful willingness to assume a revolting pseudo-sexual pose, I just assumed it was your run-of-the-mill post-ironic hipster douchebag.

And, of course, the teabagging hipster douchebag picture has been removed. Wow! We're sorry! What a mistake! We didn't mean to post that picture or leave it there long enough for everyone to have a good laugh! We absolutely didn't! We're a magazine of integrity, don't you know?

[Obviously Mike Allen is his god, and he felt compelled to go with the all caps.]

Then the very next day he has this jewel of persuasion in an article-

It's a reform designed in the mold of classic moderate Republicanism, melding fiscal responsibility and compassion for the poor and sick with a series of bold experiments to nudge medicine toward efficiency.

In an article where he's complaining about how everyone else is myopic.

Normally they will delete any comment with a "homo" "fag" or "queer" usage. In fact there is no reliably politically correct term that you can use for same sex practitioners.

Except now. Teabagger is a term they won't censor.

From now on if you are in the mood to question some obnoxious persons sexual orientation, in the most derogatory insulting manner possible, without a pause to think about whether the nanny media will moderate your tone, teabagger is the word to use.

Without GWB the left couldn't have a three person parade. Especially without puppets. So I can imagine they will remain infuriated by the "tea baggers" and remain as happy at inventing that clever slur as they are at having, after years and years of thinking about it, come up with the term "wing nuts." I will hurl the ultimate leftie insult at this TNR piece: "sad."

The Left's Propagandists are running full bore. Ridicule is all they have because the facts are not on their side. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen NO MATTER WHERE he was born, since his father was not a US Citizen at the time Obama 2 was born. He freely admitted to being subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power at the time he was born (Britain), thus he can never be Natural Born, even if born in JFK's lap in the oval office. They try to keep the focus on the BC to distract from the real issue, which is that his father was Kenyan. Just as an aside though. If Ann Althouse were trying a case would she accept the word of an unsworn, biased website? Wouldn't she ask if the people who supposedly examined the BC on Factcheck were document experts? Wouldn't she be able to tear them apart on the stand? Wouldn't she want to see the document herself, not a picture on a website? Why does the Hi. director of health have to make very carefully worded parsed statements about the BC? Does "natural-born American citizen" mean that he was born vaginally? (Natural Born doesn't have a hyphen)? Oh I know, nothing to see here, move along. I must just be crazy! If you all are lawyers that are reading this you should be ashamed not to ask these questions. Not that you care about the constitution anyway, even Volokh, the supposed genius, doesn't know what a Natural Born Citizen is.

“If Barack Obama even seeks reelection as president in 2012, he won’t be able to go to any city, any hamlet in America without seeing signs that ask, ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’” Farah crowed from the podium.

How appalling! Next thng you know, some crazies will be demanding that George W Bush release his TANG records in order to prove that he fulfilled his National Guard obligations.

What I don't get is naming your party after a bunch of smugglers though.

How exactly were the (Indian-warrior painted and garbed) protesters against taxation without representation who threw the King's licensed and taxed tea overboard into Boston Harbor in the “Boston Tea Party” (in 1773 during the run up to the Revolutionary War) a “bunch of smugglers”?

The picture is disgusting. I was put off years ago when John Stewart began to think it was hilarious to toss around expressions from the outer fringes of the gay subculture, like "tea-bagging," "Cleveland steamer," "give me a reach-around," etc., while his audience laughs knowingly (and then heads for an internet connection to find out what the heck he's talking about.)

There are plenty of things people do that the rest of us would just as soon not have to think about. Is it going to be forced on us?

The "protesters" were not protesting taxation without representation, or high taxes on tea. Just the opposite. They were protesting the Tax Act of 1773 that made tea less taxed, and cheaper. Why would colonists be against cheaper tea!? The only people hurt by the Tax Act were tea smugglers. Two of the biggest reputed smugglers were none other than John Hancock and John Adams. So the tea partiers are aligning themsleves with smugglers, in acts what we would call terrorism today!

The Dem's contempt, the elite left's scorn and MSM's ineffectual campaign against the Tea Party only makes the movement stronger, giving it historical gravitas. Thus symbols such as the Gadsden flag emerge when tea partiers meet to express dissatisfaction with their government.

Which reminds me of this essay written in 1775 by Benjamin Franklin regarding Gadsden flag symbolism:

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?

The electorate's rebellious mood grows stronger as the economy worsens while politicians of both parties ignore/belittle constituents to their own peril. They have been warned.

Mick, Obama's mother was American no matter what island or country she happened to be at the moment Obama was born, which is shown to be Hawaii. Emphasizing the country/citizenship/loyalty of Obama's father is risible when it's not annoying. You do know the challenge to Obama's citizenship was started by H. Clinton supporters, later picked up by fringe elements, and has aught to do with the tea bag movement. (Loveliest bunch of unlikely protesters I've ever encountered. Would you care to see my pictures? 1st Denver protest.-- 2nd Denver protest They're ordinary pictures. Nothing outstanding about the photos, save for the growth between group 1 and group 2.)

I would have said to Franklin had I been around at the time and had the opportunity, "You know Ben, if may I call you Ben, you make some excellent observations there, but the snake is a helpless mess shown all chopped up like that."

The “protesters” were not protesting taxation without representation, or high taxes on tea. Just the opposite. They were protesting the Tax Act of 1773 that made tea less taxed, and cheaper. Why would colonists be against cheaper tea!?

They were protesting, yes, the Tax Act of 1773 — protesting against taxes, that is, that were levied on them by the British Parliament (in which they had no representation) rather than by their own elected colonial assemblies. According to those colonials (and Britons) known as Whigs, that was a violation of the British constitution. Thus: taxation without representation.

Moreover, calling that protest “terrorism” (though it was the action of a mob, and as such was condemned by many, including Benjamin Franklin) is pure hyperbole, in which you love to indulge.

The "protesters" were not protesting taxation without representation, or high taxes on tea. Just the opposite. They were protesting the Tax Act of 1773 that made tea less taxed, and cheaper. Why would colonists be against cheaper tea!? The only people hurt by the Tax Act were tea smugglers.

I guess this is what happens when you learn history from the back of a CrackerJack box. The colonists weren't overjoyed about cheaper tea when it came with strings attached, like Parliament continuing to insist that they could tax the colonists without consent. Despite it being cheaper, there were taxes attached to the tea. Typical that you would despise such principles--I guess in your book freedom is a small price to pay when the gov't so generously bribes you with cheap tea or health care.

Two of the biggest reputed smugglers were none other than John Hancock and John Adams.John Adams, one of the most respectable lawyers in the colonies, was a tea smuggler? What an exciting life he led!

So the tea partiers are aligning themsleves with smugglers, in acts what we would call terrorism today!And your compatriots would call it Direct Action.

Chip Ahoy said... "Mick, Obama's mother was American no matter what island or country she happened to be at the moment Obama was born, which is shown to be Hawaii. Emphasizing the country/citizenship/loyalty of Obama's father is risible when it's not annoying. You do know the challenge to Obama's citizenship was started by H. Clinton supporters,"

You don't understand. The qualification of Natural Born Citizen is a security requirement to ensure the highest probability of attachment and allegiance to country. It was to prevent foreign influence on the 2 top officers of the government. The term is a Natural Law Term of Art from Vattel's Law of Nations which literally translates from French as "the Natives from within". It is the unification of blood and soil that makes a child naturally the citizen of ONE country, not subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For that to happen, one must be born in the US of 2 Citizen parents (or if the mother is not married, a citizen mother). Barack Obama admits Here under "Factcheck" that his citizenship was governed by Britain:http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificateHow can a person born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain be a Natural Born Citizen?If he used a British passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981 (it was a Britaish Commonwealth) he may still be a British citizen to this day. When does any lawyer accept the word of an unsworn biased (Annenberg)website as proof of anything?

Okay, the Founding Fathers were a ribald bunch with a few foibles here and there. So, they and all their work totally sucked. Hitler OTOH was quite a smiling greenie, loved children and dogs and was a vegetarian anti-smoking teetotaler. So he and all his work was just loverly. Good grief. Such pointless nonsense.

Garage reveals his true Democratic party colors by suggesting that the self-interest of the organizers of the Boston Tea Party somehow invalidates the larger political purpose of the destruction of the tea. In Democrat world, any self-interest is EVIL! CORRUPT! ... that is, unless it's a Democrat's self-interest.

You may depend, that thoſe odious Miſcreants and deteſ-table Tools to Miniﬅry and Governor, the Tᴇᴀ Cᴏɴsɪɢɴᴇᴇs,(thoſe Traitors to their Country, Butchers, who have done, and are do-ing every Thing to Murder and deﬅroy all that ſhall ﬅand in the Wayof their private Intereﬅ,) are determined to come and reſide again inthe Town of Boﬅon.

I therefore give you this early Notice, that you may hold yourſelvesin Readineſs, on the ſhorteﬅ Notice, to give them ſuch a Reception, asſuch vile Ingrates deſerve. JOYCE, jun. (Chairman of the Committee for Tarring and Feathering.

☞ If any Perſon ſhould be ſo hardy as to Tear this down, they mayexpect my ſevereﬅ Reſentment. J. jun.

Two of the biggest reputed smugglers were none other than John Hancock and John Adams.

Where on earth did you come up with this sort of rubbish? I, for one, would like to see some sort of reference. I read David McCullough's biography of Adams a couple times over, and it's clear that his only source of income was his profession as a lawyer. More recently I've read Harlow Unger's biography of Hancock, and the only suggestion that he was a smuggler was clearly a politically motivated charge based on his sloop Liberty arriving in port less than half loaded with a cargo of wine.

garage, my friend, you are going to have to stop using made up "facts."

The British government erroneously assumed (as you are erroneously assuming now) that the Colonials were distressed about the price of tea. They weren't. They refused to buy British tea because the British held that the Colonials could be taxed at will, pressed into military service at will, and have their property put to any use the Crown wanted at any time.

Any tax paid to the British government would be supporting this unjust state of affairs, which led not only to the Boston Tea Party, but the less well known reactions in New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.

In New York and Philadelphia, the Colonials sent the tea back even though it was cheaper than "smuggled" tea, and in Charleston, they left the tea to rot on the docks. In all cases, they were willing to buy more expensive "smuggled" tea. The dispute wasn't over the price of tea, but the principle of the thing. The Colonials were more than willing to pay a higher price if it meant greater freedom to determine their own fate.

As far as your attempt to equate the Boston Tea Party with terrorism, you're demonstrating only that you're a moral fucktard.

"This is quite intentional. They don't care about provoking lawsuits. This is psy-ops."

Absolutely. The same with the bullshit "Coffee Party", concocted by a fucking strategy analyst for the New York Times and a former campaigner who produced political ads for Obama.

When we do the same thing in other countries in a time of war and manufacture popular support for our agenda, douchebags like those at the Times scream to high heaven about America's underhanded tactics.

But they're more than willing to do the same in support of their own political agenda to their fellow citizens.

People should stop calling this "astroturf" or "bias" and making jokes about it and start calling it psychological operations -- a calculated effort to influence the American public by way of deception and trickery.

In all cases, they were willing to buy more expensive "smuggled" tea. The dispute wasn't over the price of tea, but the principle of the thing. The Colonials were more than willing to pay a higher price if it meant greater freedom to determine their own fate.

I don't think statists like Mahal (I won't devalue the word "liberal" by granting him such a label) understand this concept. In his mind, no one should have cause to complain because the gov't is giving us something., never mind what we give up in return for these handouts.

It's why such statists on the left make the disgusting and corrupt argument that "Poor/black/hispanic/minority people who vote Republican are voting against their own interests." It's simply beyond their conception that such people would vote for higher principles rather than a handout.

Blue@9 - "It's why such statists on the left make the disgusting and corrupt argument that "Poor/black/hispanic/minority people who vote Republican are voting against their own interests."

Except that in many aspects, "The Package" Republicans offered the minorities, the Reagan Democrats, the no health insurance working poor - DID involve them voting against their direct economic interests in order to get the "traditional values" part of the "Republican deal".

Truth is that Republicans became the great defenders of corporate interests, free trading good worker jobs to China promising great new replacement jobs for China-eradicated, India-outsourced jobs that never appeared. Tax cuts for the wealthy only.And defended it by saying that workers who saw their jobs taken away should "reinvent themselves" and strive to be CEOs - and then they too could make tens of millions....

Somewhere after Reagan, Republicans got so wrapped up in the false bubbles of prosperity and so disconnected from Reagan Democrats they forgot that Reagan was a staunch defender of jobs Japan was trying to take and the guy screaming at Israel to extradite fled Wall Street con artists who dishonored their profession.

Did Clinton also sell out minorities and workers? Seek the Open Borders the Bush's wanted? Love Free Trade? Of course! With the Gingrich Congress cheering him at every turn.

Except that in many aspects, "The Package" Republicans offered the minorities, the Reagan Democrats, the no health insurance working poor - DID involve them voting against their direct economic interests in order to get the "traditional values" part of the "Republican deal".

Great, another paternalistic statist. Don't you get it? Many of us have no desire to vote for a man or party just because of promises to enrich our particular demographic. I would (figuratively) spit on a politician who told me "If you vote for me, I'll make sure all Korean-Americans between the ages of 30 and 35 get one meeellion dollars from the gov't!" Seriously, go eat a bag of dicks.

People should vote according to whatever factors they feel are most important to their lives. Who the hell are these condescending douchebags who lecture poor people that they're "voting against their interests" if they vote for the party that doesn't promise them a handout? Let me guess: in your world, poor people are too damn stupid to figure out their own best interests--it's best that they let you do the thinking for them, eh?

Do you tell rich Democrats: "You idiot, you're voting against your own interests?" What about white people or non-union workers? Do you lecture them about making sure to vote for their own direct economic interests? You're just like that guy Mahal: OMG but this party is giving you cheap tea!

And you douchebags have the gall to say that we're the greedy and selfish ones?

Clearly, the left is terrorized by millions of their fellow Americans. Phobias often lead to irrational, sometimes dangerous overreaction. Teaphobia is already producing derangement and psychosis on the left. There will be some very revealing behavior in the near future that may turn out to be dangerous. Simply follow the projection from the left to see how it may manifest. They will do what they claim to fear most from this concerned and lawful movement of people doing their duty as free men and women in a democracy.

This article illustrates a perfectly legal approach, but demonstrates the lack of respect for honest debate and the humanity of the opposition which always precedes the decent into violence.

I think that may not occur this time only because of the power of this media to instantly show it and hurt the message of the guilty. That could be a great benefit of the Internet and I hope we make it so.

I am disinclined to take 'tea-bagger' as a serious insult, but perhaps a linguist or grammarian could help me settle this. Considering 'employer/employee', is not 'tea-bagger' preferable to 'tea-bagee'?

Minimum wage on a single full-time job is $15,000. So that gives us a lower boundary on "working poor". The median household income is $50,000, so that gives us an upper range on what could conceivably be called "working poor". The following is the percentage of native-born American households that lacked insurance for at least part of the year:

Even among the working poor, the vast majority are insured. So even if one was ignorant enough to believe that Obamacare will benefit those members of the working poor who lack insurance, it would still be in the self-interest of most of the working poor to oppose it.

In short, the idea that working poor "Reagan Democrats" ought to be supporting Obamacare is a bunch of nonsense.

"Let me guess: in your world, poor people are too damn stupid to figure out their own best interests--it's best that they let you do the thinking for them, eh?"

In my world, seeing America's industrial base gutted by a Ruling Elite that control the levers of power, not the workers...it is not a function of American middle class stupidity that so many of them are jobless.It is a function of how powerless they are to stop selling out America's future to the Chinese, stop mass illegal immigration, or restrain an out of control Fed gov't that sees Gov't jobs as the solution to jobs lost overseas.

Lecturing the American middle class that they are only suffering because they are too stupid to set up their own China import company is hardly the way to get them to see Corporate Republicanism as their friend. No matter how much "traditional family values love" is thrown in as a sort of propitiation...

And the gutted of jobs middle class and working poor get the familiar "magic bullet" excuses from Globalist Elites of both Parties.

Republicans hold out the hope of magic technology as well as "let those lazy sometimes unionized bastards pull themselves up by their bootstraps to become entrepreneurs or CEOS" logic. "Nanotechnology!! Become your own small business man in a town with no jobs!" And quietly, the one place Bush II was able to grow jobs was by growing government even faster than LBJ to add 1.8 million new Federal jobs funded by China IOUs.

Democrats hold out miracle high technology and government jobs to replace what we gave away to China and India. "Exciting Green Jobs! HIgh tech Solar Salvation!!" And more money borrowed from CHina to add community organizer/grant user jobs."Only adding new Fed jobs on borrowed money or paying to keep existing jobs with borrowed money - worked.

Several years ago, I interviewed ChrisSimcox; search his name if you don't know who that is. I wanted him to give me examples of media bias, but he wasn't able to comply. But, that's not why I'm writing this. His associate was a complete, drooling-on-himself idiot, running down the MSM to me: a non-MSMer who's basically on the same side as them. Instead of cooperating with my attempt to show up the MSM, that assistant treated me like I was one of the people I'm trying to fight against.

Ahhh, Lydia Depillis. The woman - excuse me, girl - who wrote that article called me a racist in another article she wrote for TNR, about the 9-12 march in DC.

She is an undergraduate intern at TNR. She interviewed a bunch of us ladies having a happy hour drink at one of the Washington hotels, the evening before the march. I said one thing I liked about Obama is that his family is a good role model for black families, in terms of a black man loving a black woman, raising their children well, intact family, education ... all things many black and white thought leaders said about Obama during his campaign.

In the article she quoted me and called my remark racist. I tried to respond in the comment thread, but couldn't log in unless I paid for a subscription, which I was not going to do. I wrote to editorial and asked if I could rebut, they said only if you're a subscriber. I let it go. How many people were going to read it and there are lots of people with my name.

I happened upon her twitter handle last week, because I follow a few liberal journalists, and read some of her twitter feed. Snarky, shallow, predictable lefty tropes, I'm so cool I get to play with the big kids, aren't those teabaggers dumb, etc. I mean, worse than Megan McCain if you can believe it.

I think we need to connect the dots here ... Andrew Breitbart could do a number on her.

In my world, seeing America's industrial base gutted by a Ruling Elite that control the levers of power, not the workers...it is not a function of American middle class stupidity that so many of them are jobless.

Ah yes, that's because you're stuck in world that no longer exists. Wistfully pining away for the past glories of an economy where American workers were insulted from competitive pressures is, well, quixotic.

This may be news to you, but the world where an American family could enjoy a comfortable middle-class existence on the salary of a single unskilled blue-collar worker was doomed long before any jobs actually left this country. Most of this incredible prosperity was rooted in a single fact: The rest of the industrialized world was either bankrupt or under rubble after WWII, except for us. How long do you think that kind of superiority was going to last? Forever? Eventually the rest of the world caught up (or is catching up), because it's not feasible to bomb everyone else back into poverty.

Businesses sold out America and shipped jobs overseas? What else did you think would happen when foreign workers finally had factories in which they could make the same stuff at a fraction of the cost? What do you think the solution should have been--keep making the same stuff as China but sell it at 10 times the cost? How long do you think that business model could survive? Shit, even the Japanese don't manufacture most of their electronics anymore--it's way too costly compared to doing it in China.

In the end, you're just indulging in a fantasist pipe-dream. The US couldn't just put up a massive wall around the country and declare that our economy would stay the same forever. That would have been real economic suicide. We can't pretend our way out of this. Frankly we're only doing as well as we are because of innovation and a shift to technology and an ideas-based economy. Keeping around manufacturing that pays union workers $30/hour to make $.05 widgets and textiles is asinine and everyone knows it.

So yeah, keep blaming "them." You know, "them," the cabal, the elites, those evil people pulling levers because they hate America. Let's just pretend that prosperity is natural result of generous intentions, and that we can regain our former glories by unleashing a stabbity thrust into the dark hearts of "them." Laf.

Republicans hold out the hope of magic technology as well as "let those lazy sometimes unionized bastards pull themselves up by their bootstraps to become entrepreneurs or CEOS" logic.

Yes, that's exactly what Republicans say: "union workers should become CEOs". It was extremely clever of you to summarize it in that manner. A lesser mind might have said that Republicans want union workers to do the same thing that non-union workers do: provide useful work in exchange for the best salaries they can attract in a free market.

Rather than, say, the best salaries they can pay Democratic Congressmen and Presidents to pay out of tax revenues. :)

Sophie makes perfect sense and when Clinton went the NAFTA route for free trade, the unions were put in their place, at the very bottom of the industrial complex along with lawyers. Two lowlife parasitical collectivities destructive of economic growth were sidelined until the Dem disease made a comeback and put SEIU and the tort thugs front and center.

The US is going to have to continue its climbdown or put the Dem disease back in remission in Nov, 2010.

Please, the difference is the vast majority of the Tea Partiers didn't even know what that term meant, much less have done it, and, well, the left is pretty much composed of terrorist-sympathizing marxist baby killers so it fits.

"I don't think statists like Mahal (I won't devalue the word 'liberal' by granting him such a label) understand this concept. In his mind, no one should have cause to complain because the gov't is giving us something., never mind what we give up in return for these handouts."

In most movements the "lunatic fringe" is where the verve and vigor of the party comes from. With sensible, pragmatic people at its core a group learns to use that energy to keep excitement - and funding) rolling in.

Personally, I'm glad to have them. Something to keep MSM focused upon while the real work goes on. And those very, well, focused souls will be of good use in the upcoming political battles over health care and the systematic dismissal of individual freedom Obama has in store for us.

"What else did you think would happen when foreign workers finally had factories in which they could make the same stuff at a fraction of the cost?"

Ooh! Ooohh! I know! ...our wages and standards of living would plummet! Right?

Plummet? So far we're just standing still, but they may as well plummet if people continue to insist that we prop up jobs that make no economic sense. What the hell is wrong with people? Do they really think we can legislate a different economic reality? Go ahead, pass a law that bans companies from moving jobs overseas. It'll be nice for about five years, and then the jobs will be gone anyway because the companies will be gone.

The funny thing is that China surpassed us in manufacturing for the first time just this past year. That's right, for all the bleating about the evil men behind the curtain selling us out, it's only been in the past year that we've dropped from #1 to #2. We're now behind a country with four times the population and an artificially devalued currency.

What does this mean? It means we still do a shit-ton of manufacturing--we just don't do the cheap shit that doesn't make any economic sense. Over time this sector is going to continue to shrink, but it's going to resemble something more like Germany's manufacturing sector--tooling, industrial goods, luxury goods, the kinds of stuff that still sells for a premium because the Chinese can't do it very well--yet.

Eventually the Chinese will catch up to that too, and then we'll have to figure out other things that we're better at than the rest of the world.

Lonewacko, I've never followed one of your links. Your a lousy salesman. Insulting customers is what's really stupid by expecting us to be interested by lame, broad, ad hominem attacks which inform us that what is at your link is a waste of our time.

Glad I got all that "paperwork" taken care of, Ann. Otherwise I would have missed out on the sterling education being advanced by this "garage" guy/gal. Gave me a good laugh and this old Texan can always use a good laugh!

So it's bad form to mock stupidity now? Oh, right, I forgot - the "New Journalism" means that any crazy BS now demands equal time with actual facts, science or history. The "Teabagger" meme was originated by the group itself - if you're dumb enough to start out with a footbullet like that you're flat-out begging for mockery ... & it doesn't help when you follow it up with Orly Taitz & "GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!!1111!!"

Nor does massive gnashing of teeth over Obama's "socialism" from people who obviously have no idea what the word really means. Socialists don't bail out ailing banks with taxpayer money - they nationalize them. They don't spend an entire year trying to fix a dysfunctional private healthcare system - they abolish it in favor of an exclusively public one.

Changing over to "The Tea Party" scarcely helps, if you know the real story behind the original Boston Tea Party. Nor does the fetish with the Founding Fathers: if anything, America is suffering from some states having too much representation, relative to their meagre population, which gives them far more political power than their numbers merit. That imbalance is repeated by the media in regards to the Tea Party itself - they only get a few hundred people to show up on the steps of the Capitol, yet they're national news when they do so.

Go through the archives of websites like Instapundit, HotAir, LGF or JawaReport if you want to see some REAL ugly use of perjoratives & tasteless graphics. The right trumps the left by light-years in terms of sheer nastiness, both online & IRL - Google "Max Cleland election campaign" for one obvious example.

Go through the archives of websites like Instapundit, HotAir, LGF or JawaReport if you want to see some REAL ugly use of perjoratives & tasteless graphics. The right trumps the left by light-years in terms of sheer nastiness, both online & IRL - Google "Max Cleland election campaign" for one obvious example.

You're kidding, right? Ever been to a lefty protest? An anti-war rally during the Bush years? Amazing.